Pro se
plaintiff Fradario Brim, a prisoner incarcerated at the Green
Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI), is proceeding on claims
that defendants Chaplain Mike Donovan, Correctional Officer
II Frappier, and Scott Eckstein violated his free exercise
and free speech rights under the First Amendment and his
religious rights under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc-1(a). Brim alleges that defendants prevented him from
attending Islamic prayers and study groups, fasting during
Ramadan, and maintaining a Halal diet.

Before
the court is defendants' unopposed motion for summary
judgment dismissing Brim's claims against Frappier based
on Brim's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Dkt. 14. Because Brim has not responded to defendants'
motion, I will accept the administrative exhaustion record
defendants filed in support of their motion as undisputed.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). After considering the record, I
conclude that Brim exhausted his administrative remedies for
his claims, so I will deny defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

UNDISPUTED
FACTS

I draw
the following facts from defendants' submissions in
support of their motion and the court's July 1, 2016
screening order, Dkt. 7.

While
incarcerated, Brim has practiced his Muslim faith by
attending an Islamic Talim study group in the GBCI chapel,
participating in Friday prayers or Salatual Jumu'ah,
fasting for Ramadan, and maintaining a Halal diet. Brim could
perform these religious acts because he was on GBCI's
religious services pass list, Ramadan list, and Halal diet
list. Prisoners on these lists can attend religious services
and receive accommodations, such as Halal foods and meals
delivered before sunrise and after sunset during Ramadan.

In
April 2015, Brim discovered that his name was no longer on
the religious services pass list. On April 28, Brim filed a
grievance challenging the “arbitrary decision by
chaplain Donovan (and any other GBCI staff involved)”
to remove his name from the religious services pass list.
Dkt. 16-2, at 13. The institution complaint examiner (ICE)
investigated Brim's grievance and determined that the
GBCI security director removed Brim from the pass list after
receiving a report of Brim's disruptive behavior during
Friday prayers on April 10, 2015. Dkt. 16-2, at 9. Among the
documents included in the grievance packet were copies of the
April 10, 2015 incident report filed by defendant Chad
Frappier, a GBCI correctional officer who was a “chapel
officer” during the events at issue in this suit. Dkt.
16-2, at 16-19. In the incident report, Frappier indicates
that Brim was loudly talking about Islam during Talim and
that, after a brief confrontation with another prisoner,
Frappier told Brim and the other prisoner to leave the
chapel. Frappier also complains that Brim has a history of
“pushing his belief system on everyone else.”
Id. at 17. The incident report form indicates that
Frappier's report was forwarded to the security director
for “review of possible removal from Chapel.”
Id. at 18.

On June
26, 2015, Brim filed another grievance accusing defendant
Donovan of failing to put Brim's name on the Ramadan list
in retaliation for Brim's April grievance. On July 1,
2015, Brim filed a third grievance, again accusing Donovan of
removing Brim's name from the Halal diet list in
retaliation for Brim's April and June grievances. All
three of Brim's grievances were dismissed, as were
Brim's appeals.

I
granted Brim leave to proceed against defendants Frappier,
Mike Donovan, the GBCI chaplain, and Scott Eckstein, the
warden of GBCI. I concluded that Brim stated claims under the
First Amendment free exercise clause and RLUIPA for barring
his participation in religious practices by removing his name
from the pass list in April 2015, removing his name from the
Ramadan list in June 2015, and removing his name from the
Halal diet list a few weeks later. I concluded that Brim also
stated First Amendment retaliation claims for barring
Brim's participation in religious practices in
retaliation for (1) Brim's religious discussion during
the April Talim and (2) Brim's filing of three formal
grievances against defendants and appealing the disciplinary
proceedings that resulted from Frappier's April incident
report.

ANALYSIS

To
succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party
must show that there is no genuine dispute of material fact
and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “A genuine issue of material fact
arises only if sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving
party exists to permit a jury to return a verdict for that
party.” Brummett v. Sinclair Broad. Grp., 414
F.3d 686, 692 (7th Cir. 2005). All reasonable inferences from
the facts in the summary judgment record must be drawn in the
nonmoving party's favor. Baron v. City of Highland
Park, 195 F.3d 333, 338 (7th Cir. 1999). Although Brim
did not respond to defendants' motion, defendants must
still carry the burden to show that summary judgment is
appropriate. Johnson v. Gudmundsson, 35 F.3d 1104,
1112 (7th Cir. 1994).

Under
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), “[n]o action shall be
brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983
of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility
until such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” The exhaustion requirement is mandatory,
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006), and
“applies to all inmate suits.” Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Generally, to comply
with § 1997e(a), a prisoner must “properly take
each step within the administrative process, ” which
includes filing grievances and appeals “in the place,
and at the time, the prison's administrative rules
require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022,
1024, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002). The grievance need not provide
“a detailed factual narrative, articulate legal
theories, or demand particular relief to exhaust [the
prisoner's] administrative remedies, [but] must merely
‘object intelligibly to some asserted
shortcoming.'” Stewart v. Cox, No.
14-cv-665, 2015 WL 9296457, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2015)
(quoting Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th
Cir. 2002)).

In
Wisconsin, the administrative code sets out the process for a
prisoner to file a grievance and appeal an adverse decision.
Wis. Admin. Code §§ DOC 310.07 and 310.09. Failure
to follow these rules may require dismissal of the
prisoner's claims. Perez v. Wis. Dep't of
Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 1999). Because
exhaustion is an affirmative defense, defendants bear the
burden of establishing that a plaintiff failed to exhaust his
available remedies. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216
(2007).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After
considering the administrative exhaustion record, I conclude
that defendants have not carried their burden. Defendants
contend that because Brim&#39;s grievances did not name
Frappier, prison officials did not have notice of Brim&#39;s
claims against Frappier. But a defendant need not be named in
a grievance to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See
Wille v. Pugh, No. 13-cv-1024, 2015 WL 5254532, at *6
(E.D. Wis. Sept. 9, 2015). Instead, &ldquo;the standard is
whether the offender complaint would put an official on
notice of the plaintiff&#39;s claim.&rdquo; Id.
&ldquo;[A] grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the
nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.&rdquo;
Strong, 297 F.3d at 650. Brim's April grievance
objected to the “arbitrary decision by chaplain Donovan
(and any other GBCI staff involved)” to remove his name
from the religious services pass list. Dkt. 16-2, at 13. The
ICE determined that Frappier was at least partially
responsible for the removal of Brim's name from the pass
list. Frappier's ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.